Terrence Shannon Jr. Found Not Guilty

I missed out on how bad it really got between Seiden and Hanley. I joked he had better be careful, clearly he wasn't-


"Seiden tried to take issue with Hanley, asking her if it was going to be the norm going forward that cases would be assigned to different judges when such scheduling conflicts arose. Hanley told Seiden she was not going to address that issue, but Seiden persisted, bringing up the issue two more times, and even turning to Chief Judge James McCabria, who was sitting in the gallery as a spectator, to address the issue. McCabria, who was not the presiding judge, remained silent, presumably in deference to his colleague on the bench.

Hanley told Seiden a total of three times that she was not going to address the matter, prompting Seiden, after Hanley had adjourned the hearing, to approach McCabria in the gallery and ask him if they could discuss it. A clearly upset Seiden told McCabria he’d “shoot” an email to him, then exited the courtroom.

The scheduling conflict arose because both the Burgess case, involving allegations of child rape, and the Shannon case, involving allegations that the then-basketball player sexually assaulted a woman at a Lawrence bar, were both assigned to Judge Sally Pokorny. The Burgess trial, which began last week, was supposed to be concluded well before the Shannon trial got underway, but because Burgess became ill on Monday, the remainder of his trial, likely just a day or two, was pushed out a week, to the same day that Shannon’s trial was scheduled to start.

The Shannon case was then reassigned, earlier Tuesday, to Hanley’s courtroom.

Chief Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Tatum originally represented the state in the Shannon case, but Tatum, an experienced prosecutor, resigned in March, just days after Valdez’s office lost a high-profile murder case in which a jury acquitted a teen of murdering a 14-year-old Black boy. A month later, another one of the DA’s office’s murder cases ended in an acquittal: the case of a transient man who had been accused of killing another man last summer in downtown Lawrence."

ejam21 said:

This tactic to get a conviction when they shouldve had a good idea that he wasnt guilty is just gross.

Click to expand...

I mostly kept away from the trial stuff until the verdict, but this DA has some issues

Loyalillini10 said:

Yeah, this isn't new information. Her track record has been brought up and talked about since we heard about the charges. I would hope she is not re-elected.

Click to expand...

I will admit I stayed away from this trial until a couple of days ago, though I read from this board that the plaintiff's case was pretty dubious beforehand.

IlliniFan42 said:

Additionally, this DA specifically would never prosecute.

Click to expand...

This DA prioritized the rights of the alleged victim over the rights of the alleged assailant and that is NOT how the system is designed to work. The alleged victim, who in this case to my knowledge has still not been publicly identified, must be presumed by the DA to be telling the truth while the investigation is taking place while at the same time the alleged assailant must be presumed to be innocent pending the outcome of what the investigation shows. In this case, not only was the investigation completely one-sided and botched in favor of the alleged victim, but the DA's office went so far as to apparently hide exculpatory evidence with respect to a much more likely suspect, Arterio Morris, who coincidentally just happened to be a Jayhawk Basketball player present at the exact same place and time just two weeks after allegedly performing a similar assault on another young woman. Not very politically popular to be the DA in Lawrence, Kansas and charge a member of the Jayhawks with rape, especially when you are already under investigation yourself with your own law license at risk with your only defense in that matter for her to play the victim card. Then, after proceeding with this charade jury trial, but only after first dumping the case on two other prosecutors just a week before trial because of an alleged "scheduling conflict" (as stated in yesterday's Lawrence Times), you attend the closing arguments and then leave the courtroom quickly after the verdict and rush back to your office to issue a statement which strongly implies that the jury got it wrong: “It takes tremendous courage for a survivor of sexual assault to come forward. We will continue to pursue justice on behalf of survivors.” WHAT??? How about a statement saying "the jury has spoken and we will respect its verdict" DA Valdez?
This case was never about the pursuit of justice as between the alleged victim and the accused defendant. It was always about a rogue DA's personal agenda and abuse of prosecutorial power. I don't care at this point about prosecuting the alleged victim. But I do care about TSJ getting justice for the conduct of this DA, be it in a civil case or in a criminal prosecution if a well conducted investigation shows the deliberate concealment of exculpatory evidence by her and/or her office. That is what justice requires in these circumstances and after what he has been put through TSJ is entitled to justice.

There’s already a public outcry to press charges against the 2 women for false reporting (Felony). You can find the tweets naming them & calling them out.

If it was a hoax, which I believe it was, they should be made an example of to prevent would-be opportunists or spurned women from false accusations in the future. Terrence had his day in court, now they should have theirs.

FreshlySqueezed said:

But we don't know this to be true. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Click to expand...

Yeah, true. Before the trial, I probably would have said that a mistaken identity was the most likely explanation for the situation. But after, while I suppose I can't totally rule it out, it seems much less likely to me given the inconsistencies in the story as well as the most straightforward interpretation of that group text.

To me, it now seems more likely that it was either 1) all made up, or - and I think this would be my guess as the most likely scenario as of now - 2) a situation where she actually was groped or assaulted, but not to the extent that she ended up claiming - maybe someone grabbed her butt or something like that - but I don't think she knew who did it.

But she's still angry about it, still thinks these athletes think they can just get away with anything, and maybe she's feeling angry enough about it to try to do something in retaliation. She doesn't know who did it - but does it really matter? They're all the same anyway.

And maybe she ends up targeting TSJ because he's the highest profile one there that is from out of town - she's not willing to risk going after someone that's a local celebrity - but Shannon might make a better target.

So she embellishes the story a bit, says the grope went farther than it did, and is still feeling violated and filled with enough righteous anger the next day to endure the SA exam that she knows she'll need to go through. It'll be worth it in the long run to get some revenge and get some $$ while doing it.

Of course, chances are I'm way off with this theory, but it does seem likely to me that she was at least somewhat dishonest in her telling of the incident - but I'm not sure if that means she made it all up or if she just embellished some things and pinned it on a target of opportunity.

And again, it's possible (but less likely than I used to think) that it actually happened just as she said EXCEPT that she got the assaulter's ID wrong - Morris WAS there, of course, or it was someone else - who knows. (But to that point, maybe Morris would be a suspect in the embellished groping theory I've concocted.)

Obviously we'll never know, but I'm so thankful TSJ can now move on.

More3s said:

So she embellishes the story a bit, says the grope went farther than it did, and is still feeling violated and filled with enough righteous anger the next day to endure the SA exam that she knows she'll need to go through. It'll be worth it in the long run to get some revenge and get some $$ while doing it.

Click to expand...

IANAL

this is the part that confuses me. to my understanding, there is no money in a criminal case. the accuser would have to win the criminal case and then file and win a civil case to get any money, right?

assuming the above is accurate, then i could see the very real possibility of teenagers (in the group text) confused about what this case is about and expecting to get money from it. it could have pre-conceived or they just talked themselves into believing it over the past couple of months.

That isn't accurate. Famous example: OJ Simpson. Was accused of and acquitted on all charges. Family of victims filed a civil suit and he lost and paid the families his fortune.

wettsten said:

IANAL

this is the part that confuses me. to my understanding, there is no money in a criminal case. the accuser would have to win the criminal case and then file and win a civil case to get any money, right?

assuming the above is accurate, then i could see the very real possibility of teenagers (in the group text) confused about what this case is about and expecting to get money from it. it could have pre-conceived or they just talked themselves into believing it over the past couple of months.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if the girls believed this case would never make it to trial. Instead, TJ would plead down, do no jail time, and the alleged victim would then pursue a civil suit.

wettsten said:

IANAL

this is the part that confuses me. to my understanding, there is no money in a criminal case. the accuser would have to win the criminal case and then file and win a civil case to get any money, right?

assuming the above is accurate, then i could see the very real possibility of teenagers (in the group text) confused about what this case is about and expecting to get money from it. it could have pre-conceived or they just talked themselves into believing it over the past couple of months.

Click to expand...

Yeah I hear you - of course I was trying to account for the but who knows how they thought it would actually play out to that end.

lstewart53x3 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if the girls believed this case would never make it to trial. Instead, TJ would plead down, do no jail time, and the alleged victim would then pursue a civil suit.

Click to expand...

Many people speculate that the DA and the accuser thought he would take the safe route and plead to the misdemeanor instead of going to trial. With the guilty plea on the record, she would be able to collect a big civil settlement from him once he's in the NBA, since a misdemeanor wouldn't completely drail his career. I'm glad TJ had good legal advise and the means to pay for them, and the intestinal fortitude to take this to trial.

Who knew LeBron and the Kansas legal system had something in common - neither can spell TSJ's name correctly.

ejam21 said:

This tactic to get a conviction when they shouldve had a good idea that he wasnt guilty is just gross.

Click to expand...

If (and I know it’s a big if) they can prove that, sue the hell out of the state and county.

Let’s hope this keeps gaining steam! Nice exposure for this idea from Piper here.

wettsten said:

IANAL

this is the part that confuses me. to my understanding, there is no money in a criminal case. the accuser would have to win the criminal case and then file and win a civil case to get any money, right?

assuming the above is accurate, then i could see the very real possibility of teenagers (in the group text) confused about what this case is about and expecting to get money from it. it could have pre-conceived or they just talked themselves into believing it over the past couple of months.

Click to expand...

Once he's convicted in a criminal trial or took a plea deal, she could have launched a civil case for damages. (That second part is important - a plea deal would have left him open to a civil suit he probably would have lost or been forced to settle.)

Also if you're found guilty in criminal court, you're guilty in civil court effectively speaking.

The chain of events she was hoping for was he got suspended, once that happens he's desperate to play again so he agrees to a plea deal (at the time a misdemeanor), then gets found guilty or settles in civil court because the bar is much lower.

The suspension was the key to this plan, that's what triggered the text. Without being suspended, he has no reason to make a deal. They couldn't imagine he'd take the University to court and win for his right to play.

More3s said:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1801746820973924705

Click to expand...

IlliniFan42 said:

New files uploaded, if you're curious how the jury was instructed.

Click to expand...

"Statements, arguments, and remarks of counsel al'e intended to help you in understanding the evidence arid in applying the law, but they are not evidence. If any statements are made that are not supported by evidence, they should be disregarded." So the closing statement by the DA which stated that TSJ is used to getting what he wants because he is the big man on campus had to be disregarded. If fact basically anything that came out of the DA's mouth had to be disregarded because it was either not supported by evidence or refuted by it.

SescIllini said:

"Statements, arguments, and remarks of counsel al'e intended to help you in understanding the evidence arid in applying the law, but they are not evidence. If any statements are made that are not supported by evidence, they should be disregarded." So the closing statement by the DA which stated that TSJ is used to getting what he wants because he is the big man on campus had to be disregarded. If fact basically anything that came out of the DA's mouth had to be disregarded because it was either not supported by evidence or refuted by it.

Click to expand...

"YUPPP YESSSIRR"

IlliniFan42 said:

Once he's convicted in a criminal trial or took a plea deal, she could have launched a civil case for damages. (That second part is important - a plea deal would have left him open to a civil suit he probably would have lost or been forced to settle.)

Also if you're found guilty in criminal court, you're guilty in civil court effectively speaking.

The chain of events she was hoping for was he got suspended, once that happens he's desperate to play again so he agrees to a plea deal (at the time a misdemeanor), then gets found guilty or settles in civil court because the bar is much lower.

The suspension was the key to this plan, that's what triggered the text. Without being suspended, he has no reason to make a deal. They couldn't imagine he'd take the University to court and win for his right to play.

Click to expand...

A guilty plea is admissible In civil action a jury finding of guilty is not. The only question to me is the motivation early on. Was this a money grab from the beginning or was there really an assault. I originally thought the later but then that money text. That was concerning. If she tried the shakedown and was told no way she is stuck. Criminal trial has to proceed so she has to testify and be as convincing as possible. The last mystery of the saga and probably best left that way

OrangeBlue98 said:

I could only imagine the look on the DA's face when TSJ made that statement. It probably betrayed a thought of, "Oh, s***. I actually have to prove this in a real trial (where, remember, her office was 0 for 7 heading into this trial)."

It took GUTS to hold firm and look for the full exoneration. Or maybe it didn't, because by that time it was pretty obvious the DA's case was already falling apart. Hell, after I read the initial affidavit, I kept asking myself exactly what convinced the DA that there was a case worthy of a prosecution?

Click to expand...

If her office truly was 0-7 now 0-8 in these cases think of the 7 other people who probably went through similar emotions as TSJ

I don’t know the details around those cases and the state might of had a stronger cases

You would think either the DOJ or higher could be a check and balance on that office

More3s said:

Let’s hope this keeps gaining steam! Nice exposure for this idea from Piper here.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1801746820973924705

Click to expand...

Call, email, tweet the DIA, whatever you want to make your voice heard that this should be done

mrh vet said:

A guilty plea is admissible In civil action a jury finding of guilty is not. The only question to me is the motivation early on. Was this a money grab from the beginning or was there really an assault. I originally thought the later but then that money text. That was concerning. If she tried the shakedown and was told no way she is stuck. Criminal trial has to proceed so she has to testify and be as convincing as possible. The last mystery of the saga and probably best left that way

Click to expand...

I don't believe that's correct, or at least it varies. Guilty verdicts of unrelated cases aren't always admissable but being found guilty of the case you're being tried for again generally is.

"First, the criminal case must be completed. In other words, there must be a final judgment. A final judgment in a criminal case is a verdict of guilty or a plea of guilty. Secondly, the defendant in the criminal case must also be the defendant in the civil case. Finally, the judge must weigh the level of unfairness of allowing the plaintiff to use the defendant’s prior conviction against preventing the defendant from defendant his or her case at a civil trial."

Taken from this- https://www.steinshulman.com/can-a-criminal-conviction-be-used-in-a-civil-trial-in-illinois/

Is the refusal to accept a plea to a lesser charge previously offered by the DA admissible during the trial? His staunch refusal to cave makes me love this young man even more.

If. TJ had accepted the plea deal, he’d still have to register as a sex offender for the rest his life, wouldn’t he?